United Thread 2014/15

[sir baconface]

Excellent post, GDM.

Almost had me in tears for them.

 

[jimharri]

The Blazing Squad's newest recruit gets pulled by the dibble (Oo-err!) on his way home from mass yesterday.

Smart trainers

Hey, don't knock em;

They're what all the hip, trendy folks are wearing these days!

 

[cibaman]

Thanks

Please god lets this happen...

If he bailed out so quickly for those reasons he'd struggle to get a top job anywhere else. And the Glazers would sue him.

Doesn't seem plausible

He probably doesn't need another job. And, if the Glazers did sue, he may gave a counter-case depending on what was promised.

That said, a walk-out seems improbable.

He's got too big an ego to be remembered as the man who walked out on United after one defeat. Not unless he's got something watertight on them in terms of breach of contract that he could go public with. Much more than not signing players when the window is still open and he's been blathering on about needing time to assess the squad

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Some betting sites have no Next Manager tonleace markets......is something actually happening?

I'd love to see how they'd spin him walking.

 

[Tricky_Trev]

Only PSG have spent more money than them in the last 5 transfer windows. I think it's a disgrace that they are trying to buy 7th place. They are ruining football
[bigimg]http://imageshack.com/a/img539/5628/jB53sh.jpg[/bigimg]

 

[SouthStandStander]

The expression "it can't be done" and "the numbers don't add up" seem to be cropping up regularly when United's transfer policy is concerned.

It seems to have scuppered the Vidal deal and now Di Maria.

Is the knock on effect regarding other players' wages (guarantees to be top earner in that position) the problem?

It's an interesting question that raises a wider point.

For years united had a pretty prodigious control of the British footballing market place.

Around the turn of the last century they had one seasoned challenger to their supremacy in the league, namely Arsenal, who were financially stymied by their 38,000 capacity ground. Liverpool were a minor nuisance, but a tolerable one, given the revenue and profile that their rivalry with united provided to the rags. Chelsea were seen as upstarts from the capital who would never have the financial clout to compete with united for the big names in their prime, having to settle instead for fading once-great names, looking to see their careers out in one of the world's great cities. Talking of Cities, the football club situated a few miles away from the rags was nothing but a source of amused contempt to all associated with united. The notion that our club would be operating in the same circles as united was so fanciful as to be farcical, to all concerned, sane City fans included.

Against this backdrop united wielded a form of dominance over the marketplace which bordered on the monopolistic. Any player based in England came available and they'd have him if they wanted him. It really was as simple as that, once they'd flexed their financial muscles. If a leading player based abroad wanted to come to England, as long as they weren't overly-fixated on living in London, they'd usually be able to get the deal over the line.

The same was true about player's wages at united for a considerable time. I remember around the time they won the treble the club having a strict wage ceiling of £20k pw, which they had to eventually deviate from, as the likes of Beckham started to realise their commercial worth to the club, and the club decided to embark on the recruitment of the likes of Veron.

This is the "better, fairer" world that united fans comically hark back to before Chelsea and City 'distorted the market', "forcing" united to pay £300k per week to the granny-shagger. A world where they stood above the rest of English football, calling the shots, lording it over the rest, pillaging the other club's best players, often by coercion as they were the only decent ticket in town. A world where they had a dominant market position which made them untouchable. A world they had, more than any other club, forged through the prism of commercial exploitation. A world of plenty, for them at least.


And then people like Roman Abramovich, Gillete & Hicks and more latterly Sheikh Mansour said "I want a piece of that" for reasons of commercial opportunity, global exposure or vanity. Or maybe all three.

And maybe, just maybe, what we are witnessing now is what happens in other industries when bigger, better resourced organisations enter the fray. The previous leading incumbent in that marketplace with their outmoded systems, vainglorious assumptions about enduring hegemony and a prevailing culture of a sense of entitlement (aka "the united way") get outwitted by the new kids on the block, less bloated by the smug sense of self-satisfaction that often goes hand-in-hand with being at the top for a little too long.

Does it mean they'll disappear from view? Certainly not, but the assumptions contained within their business model about perpetual growth were based around a time when they had a much greater degree of control of the world in which they operate.

The rules of the game have changed and if they want to keep up, they've got some seriously tough strategic decisions to make in the next couple of years that will involve a significant departure from an MO that has hitherto served them so well.

The fucking small-time c**ts.

excellent post

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The expression "it can't be done" and "the numbers don't add up" seem to be cropping up regularly when United's transfer policy is concerned.

It seems to have scuppered the Vidal deal and now Di Maria.

Is the knock on effect regarding other players' wages (guarantees to be top earner in that position) the problem?

It's an interesting question that raises a wider point.

For years united had a pretty prodigious control of the British footballing market place.

Around the turn of the last century they had one seasoned challenger to their supremacy in the league, namely Arsenal, who were financially stymied by their 38,000 capacity ground. Liverpool were a minor nuisance, but a tolerable one, given the revenue and profile that their rivalry with united provided to the rags. Chelsea were seen as upstarts from the capital who would never have the financial clout to compete with united for the big names in their prime, having to settle instead for fading once-great names, looking to see their careers out in one of the world's great cities. Talking of Cities, the football club situated a few miles away from the rags was nothing but a source of amused contempt to all associated with united. The notion that our club would be operating in the same circles as united was so fanciful as to be farcical, to all concerned, sane City fans included.

Against this backdrop united wielded a form of dominance over the marketplace which bordered on the monopolistic. Any player based in England came available and they'd have him if they wanted him. It really was as simple as that, once they'd flexed their financial muscles. If a leading player based abroad wanted to come to England, as long as they weren't overly-fixated on living in London, they'd usually be able to get the deal over the line.

The same was true about player's wages at united for a considerable time. I remember around the time they won the treble the club having a strict wage ceiling of £20k pw, which they had to eventually deviate from, as the likes of Beckham started to realise their commercial worth to the club, and the club decided to embark on the recruitment of the likes of Veron.

This is the "better, fairer" world that united fans comically hark back to before Chelsea and City 'distorted the market', "forcing" united to pay £300k per week to the granny-shagger. A world where they stood above the rest of English football, calling the shots, lording it over the rest, pillaging the other club's best players, often by coercion as they were the only decent ticket in town. A world where they had a dominant market position which made them untouchable. A world they had, more than any other club, forged through the prism of commercial exploitation. A world of plenty, for them at least.


And then people like Roman Abramovich, Gillete & Hicks and more latterly Sheikh Mansour said "I want a piece of that" for reasons of commercial opportunity, global exposure or vanity. Or maybe all three.

And maybe, just maybe, what we are witnessing now is what happens in other industries when bigger, better resourced organisations enter the fray. The previous leading incumbent in that marketplace with their outmoded systems, vainglorious assumptions about enduring hegemony and a prevailing culture of sense of entitlement (aka "the united way") get outwitted by the new kids on the block less bloated by the smug sense of self-satisfaction that often goes hand-in-hand with being at the top for a little too long.

Does it mean they'll disappear from view? Certainly not, but the assumptions contained within their business model about perpetual growth were based around a time when they had a much greater degree of control of the world in which they operate.

The rules of the game have changed and if they want to keep up, they've got some seriously tough strategic decisions to make in the next couple of years that will involve a significant departure from an MO that has hitherto served them so well.

The fucking small-time cunts.

It was the Cork mongrel that broke it, I remember the fuss over him getting £55k a week.

If you're going to spell 'Cork' with a capital letter then you need to do the same for 'Mongrel', regrettably :-)

I probably should have paid a bit more attention to the wage part of my post, but I got a bit excited, as I always do, about united's travails, and moved on to that part of my post with a little too much gusto ;-)

The point is that at one point they had total control of their wages and the structure within which they were contained. They ceded control of that voluntarily as they sought to expand their Empire further. They've really got no room for complaint about the genie that they so conspicuously let out of the bottle.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Some betting sites have no Next Manager tonleace markets......is something actually happening?

I'd love to see how they'd spin him walking.

 

[jimharri]

Just said on Sky that, for what they've spent in the last 12 months, the vermin could have bought Bale, Kroos, Fabregas and Felipe Luis. Whether they'd have actually gone to U****d is (in a way) irrelevant. Just shows how much money they've spunked away on average players. £27m (was it?) on bog brush. Christ.

 

[Bill]

this is fun.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/threads/predict-the-2014-15-premier-league-top-7-final-standings.394738/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/threads/predict- ... gs.394738/</a>

my fave.
Thursday at 18:22
#4






Mrs Smoker

Full Member

Joined: Aug 24, 2011 Messages: 7,728 Location: In garden with Maurice





1. Manchester United
2. Tottenham
3. Arsenal
4. Everton
5. Chelsea
6. Manchester City
7. Liverpool

I'll be happy with one particular 1 out of 7 result.